New word, look it up:
sac·er·do·tal [sas-er-doht-l] Show IPA adjective of priests; priestly. Origin: 13501400; Middle English < Latin sacerdōtālis, equivalent to sacerdōt- (stem of sacerdōs ) priest + -ālis -al1
Penny: And you know about that stuff?
Sheldon Cooper: [patronizing] Penny - Im a physicist. I have a working knowledge of the entire universe and everything it contains.
Penny: Whos Radiohead?
Sheldon Cooper: [with facial tic] I have a working knowledge of the IMPORTANT things in the universe.
The scientism as advocated here isn’t even for science’s sake, but a wrapper for a “hedonic imperative.” Double blech.
You can read it in the restaurant at the end of the universe.
If that is what the book really says, I would say it is quite good because it doesn’t try to obfuscate, as Dawkins and others do, about the logical consequences of atheism (at least of the metaphysical naturalist variety).
The headline is so silly, atheists do not live in reality.
I’m an atheist and I think moral relativists like Alex Rosenberg are full of crap.
(Does this mean that no-one here is going to hit me with a bat?)
We used to ponder the thoughts of Martin Buber or Rabinadrath Tagore.. now we get this (forgive me) crap that seems to come from the mind of Herman Goering. Anyone with some basic philosophy knowledge could send this book to rest with the Titanic but that is not the solution, the New Atheists continue to vomit this gospel of nonsense hoping they drown us in it. They are the new inquisition (with my apologies to the original Inquisition for the comparison.)
Recently I asked the following question in one of those Internet forums: “Can someone explain how a large collection of inorganic molecules formed enough aminoacids to compose the map of the first self-reproductive cell, and please explain how said collection managed to invent the blueprint along with the functions necessary for survival and reproduction.” (I don’t remember the exact question but it was something to that effect) The answer from the illuminated atheist was more or less like this: “People that believe in God take the easy shortcut... etc. etc. I could answer your question but I would have to write a 5,000 page paper that you would not understand etc.” Now, I may be a fool but I speak several languages and I understand General Relativity. I am not bragging, just establishing some parameters for further use. That poor man tells me that he could explain the origin of life (???) but somehow he neglected to (a) publish his voluminous paper (b) execute the process and produce a synthetic cell in a lab. I am not greedy, a simple prokaryotes will do. Some believers like Lavoisier, Newton, Einstein, or LeMaitre are now a bunch of religious morons (producing lazy answers to complex problems) and our brilliant commentator gets labelled an “intellectual” by the simple device of not believing in God. Am I wrong or is it time to send some of these people some place far from the company of our children?